Subject:
|
Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 Feb 2000 22:32:16 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
JSPROAT@IOnospam.COM
|
Viewed:
|
941 times
|
| |
|
|
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> Sproaticus wrote:
> > You're assuming that the entire reason for these tests is to get around these
> > court decisions.
> "With affirmative action programs under legal fire, colleges and
> universities are searching for minority admissions procedures that
> can withstand allegations of unfair preferences."
> I am not assuming anything, this is a quote from the article. If this
> was a fair test, everyone should be tested, not just minorities. We go
> back to the affirmative action debate.
So what about that part which says "minority admissions procedures that can
withstand allegations of unfair preferences"? Sounds to me like they're vying
for a more fair environment, not necessarily within the restrictions of
affirmitave action.
You're just quoting the news article, not the actual source. And that's only
one point of view within the article. See the conversation with Terence Pell
near the end, for example. See also the part which says:
"The tests are seen as a way to help colleges maintain racial diversity even
if racial preferences are eventually banned."
Diversity is good. Say it times to yourself: "Diversity is good." Without
diversity, out society will ultimately stagnate and fester in its own pool of
self-centeredness.
> > And remember, this method of testing isn't policy; it's an *experiment*. In a
> > *private* college. I would hope that they can do whatever the hell they want
> > to with their admissions.
> The University of Michigan is a private college? I don't think so.
Given, and three other state schools as well. I was wrong about it being done
solely in private schools. However, it's still an experiment, and funded
largely by private concerns.
> > Agreed, Tom. The PSAT, SAT, ACT, etc. only test the applicant's ability to
> > take tests (a skill rarely needed in the Real World). In my high school, we
> > were required to take classes to teach us how to take these tests. We learned
> > how to second-guess the answers based upon elimination, context, and cultural
> > biases. Surprise -- I got a 34 out of 36 on my ACT. My wife, who went to a
> > different school but whose knowledge and skills are about on par with mine,
> > got a much lower score.
> But colleges use these tests, don't they? Why do people take them?
Colleges also sell the names of students to mass marketing companies, unfairly
enforce parking policies, and compete in the catering business. Colleges do a
lot of things that they shouldn't. Don't let it surprise you *now*.
Colleges require these tests because the philosophy behind these tests has a
lot of momentum. But even now, these tests are slowly being phased out.
> > IQ tests (and the concept of IQ for that matter) have pretty much been
> > discredited for the same reasons -- a dependence upon test-taking skills and
> > cultural biases. I never subscribed to someone else's "Standard" for these
> > so-called "Standardized Tests", but I was still judged by them. How is that
> > fair, or equal, or even realistic?
> So a LEGO test, given to minorities, is fair?
Nope. It's about as unfair as standardized tests, tho.
> > In fact, the Lego model of testing (pun intended :-) is much closer to a job
> > interview than it is to a college exam. It exposes *a lot* about a person's
> > problem-solving abilities.
> Which has nothing to do in college, however. You don't apply to college
> to get a job, you go there to learn. Big difference.
I don't know what your college required from you, but mine required me to
solve problems on a regular basis. And to work in teams. And to interact
with various people in the "command structure" from the teacher all the way to
the school president. And to show initiative. And to meet deadlines. It
kept me on my toes. Not that big of a difference from a job, really.
Now, if your school was little more than lecture hall and tests, then I can
see how you developed your point of view.
> > > So, giving an unfair advantage to people is being fair?
> > Would you please explain why it *wouldn't* be fair, instead of claiming that
> > it isn't?
> It is targeted to minorities who don't perform to the college standard
> admissions. I would have loved to have tests like this to get in.
So you're complaining because you didn't get this entry exam? I'm pretty
upset that I didn't too! I think the emotion is called "selfishness", though
it could be "envy".
> > You've lived a very unfair life;
> Oh, yes, very unfair. >:( By whose standards? My parents raised me the
> best they could, I did my work, got the good grades, earned every cent I
> ever made, played by the rules, and got ahead in life, thank you. No one
> gave me my life, I earned it. I competed, I played by the rules, and
> succeeded. If you don't like it, tough.
Okay...but then you immediately contradict yourself:
> > i.e. life's been good for you.
> Yes, because my parents cared and loved me, and gave me the opportunity
> and drove me to succeed.
You had *someone* who could give you opportunities. What if you didn't? What
if your parents couldn't have given you the environment you needed in which to
grow?
> > There
> > aren't that many unfair strikes against you personally in the education or job
> > market.
> You know, Jeremy, I see this as the typical leftist jealousy ring,
Curious; I don't often label myself as "leftist". Left of you perhaps.
I'm more of a centrist, a fence-sitter. If I see something that is waaaaay
off-balance, then I want it moved closer to the center. Standardized testing
is waaaaay off-balance.
> This is America, and anyone can succeed, if they try.
*IF* they get opportunity. Since when does living in the U.S. guarantee
opportunity?
> > I wonder how different your attitude might be if you came from a
> > different ethnic background?
> You know, if I was a minority, I would be mad that I would get
> downgraded simply because I am a minority. I would try to excel myself
> as best as I can. This is just another example of elitists thinking
> minorities can't do as well, so we need to make up silly tests for them
> to get in.
No, this is an example of realists thinking that majorities get more breaks in
an unfair fashion. They're just trying to level the playing field a bit.
If I were a minority, I'd do what I do now: take every loophole I could find.
> > Downgraded from where, Scott? The ACT and SAT tests are very degrading in and
> > of themselves, IMO.
> IYO, maybe. But colleges still use them, so they have to have some
> viability.
Heh heh ha ha ha! Oh my, thanks for the chuckle, Scott. I needed one!
The fact that a college does x doesn't mean that x is viable. (See above.)
To trust a college to make these kind of judgements for me, then to accept
their word as gospel, is asinine. Or, to paraphrase John Handey, "I think the
mistake a lot of us make is thinking the university is our friend." They're
in the business to collect tuition; they follow the business trends of their
competitors. A current-but-flawed business trend is to give credence to
standardized tests.
Fortunately, there are people employed in this industry who think out of the
box; they try to find broken trends, and to replace them whenever possible.
Change is good.
> > Besides, the test isn't to see whether they put the Lego
> > robot together, but the technical skills and interpersonal processes they
> > employed to do so.
> You don't got o college to get employed, you go there to learn, and say,
> yes I have a piece of paper, therefore I am qualified. Just because you
> are a college graduate, doesn't mean you are ready for employment. It
> means I jumped through the hoops and got a piece of paper.
Um, you use that piece of paper to get employed, right? I mean, it's not
required, but it sure helps a lot, right? I don't know about you, but I went
to college to get employed.
Cheers,
- jsproat
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@io.com> ~~~ http://www.io.com/~jsproat/
The glass is half empty, rapidly evaporating,
and breeding bacteria which will chew your skin off.
- BLOOP
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
| Jeremy, (...) "With affirmative action programs under legal fire, colleges and universities are searching for minority admissions procedures that can withstand allegations of unfair preferences." I am not assuming anything, this is a quote from the (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
89 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
